Well apparently when i was backed, without knowing much more than that, it was immediately shot down by several caped members. Bit late for that im afraid.....
Hmm, not sure I understand your answer if I'm honest. Thought it might be interesting stuff, but obviously as per usual you evade and deflect so ignorance is bliss.
However Waddy, I know you’re not trolling, the threads I’ve read suggest you should be a bit more open minded.
Questioning your choices helps us grow, you’ve got to be open to it. I have never seen you admit to being wrong.
One time you mistook the gender of someone and still came up with a scenario where you were right. Personally, I think you’d be a better player if you opened up to being wrong more.
Although FWIW I like the adrenaline you inject into the forum and appreciate you voicing a less popular viewpoint.
Hey @poppy765, great name btw, 1 of my Granddaughters is called Poppy, if you like less popular viewpoints then how about this one.
Well apparently when i was backed, without knowing much more than that, it was immediately shot down by several caped members. Bit late for that im afraid.....
Hmm, not sure I understand your answer if I'm honest. Thought it might be interesting stuff, but obviously as per usual you evade and deflect so ignorance is bliss.
I'll chip in a little bit. Simply because it is interesting-at least, I think so.
@TheWaddy originally referred to being a "sponsored" player. Which is something totally different from being a "backed" player.
I've been lucky enough to be a "sponsored" player in the past. Essentially, the sponsored player usually gets gifted buy-ins to various tournaments, either live or online, in return for promoting the site. And the sponsored player gets to keep 100% of their winnings.
A "backed" player is loaned the buy-ins, and usually also gets given coaching. In return, he is expected to repay the loan, together with an agreed percentage of any profit.
I have never been backed. I have always chosen to have 100% of myself. That's a personal choice. Even so, it is important to recognise that it is necessary for the Backer to have considerable faith in both win rate and work ethic of their horses. A considerable majority of poker players would never be offered either.
Personally, I know nothing about the outfit that backed him. It is also important to bear in mind that Sky is less keen on backing arrangements than other sites (some, such as GG, actively promote it). However, there were negative opinions expressed by 1 or 2 Regs on this site who I know have both been previously backed and provided backing to others. But that would reflect on the backer rather more than whoever they backed.
I'll chip in a little bit. Simply because it is interesting-at least, I think so.
@TheWaddy originally referred to being a "sponsored" player. Which is something totally different from being a "backed" player.
I've been lucky enough to be a "sponsored" player in the past. Essentially, the sponsored player usually gets gifted buy-ins to various tournaments, either live or online, in return for promoting the site. And the sponsored player gets to keep 100% of their winnings.
A "backed" player is loaned the buy-ins, and usually also gets given coaching. In return, he is expected to repay the loan, together with an agreed percentage of any profit.
I have never been backed. I have always chosen to have 100% of myself. That's a personal choice. Even so, it is important to recognise that it is necessary for the Backer to have considerable faith in both win rate and work ethic of their horses. A considerable majority of poker players would never be offered either.
Personally, I know nothing about the outfit that backed him. It is also important to bear in mind that Sky is less keen on backing arrangements than other sites (some, such as GG, actively promote it). However, there were negative opinions expressed by 1 or 2 Regs on this site who I know have both been previously backed and provided backing to others. But that would reflect on the backer rather more than whoever they backed.
Hope that helps.
You missed the best bit, that the backers were badbeat.com
Waddy still out on the streets advertising for them it seems
Well apparently when i was backed, without knowing much more than that, it was immediately shot down by several caped members. Bit late for that im afraid.....
Hmm, not sure I understand your answer if I'm honest. Thought it might be interesting stuff, but obviously as per usual you evade and deflect so ignorance is bliss.
I'll chip in a little bit. Simply because it is interesting-at least, I think so.
@TheWaddy originally referred to being a "sponsored" player. Which is something totally different from being a "backed" player.
I've been lucky enough to be a "sponsored" player in the past. Essentially, the sponsored player usually gets gifted buy-ins to various tournaments, either live or online, in return for promoting the site. And the sponsored player gets to keep 100% of their winnings.
A "backed" player is loaned the buy-ins, and usually also gets given coaching. In return, he is expected to repay the loan, together with an agreed percentage of any profit.
I have never been backed. I have always chosen to have 100% of myself. That's a personal choice. Even so, it is important to recognise that it is necessary for the Backer to have considerable faith in both win rate and work ethic of their horses. A considerable majority of poker players would never be offered either.
Personally, I know nothing about the outfit that backed him. It is also important to bear in mind that Sky is less keen on backing arrangements than other sites (some, such as GG, actively promote it). However, there were negative opinions expressed by 1 or 2 Regs on this site who I know have both been previously backed and provided backing to others. But that would reflect on the backer rather more than whoever they backed.
Hope that helps.
I think this shows EssexPhil wanting to promote himself, rather than 'help out' here.... Why he backs sites so much, is out to achieve ambassador status.... Clearly, a longgggg time ago you pulled me up on sponsorship and pointed out backing was very much different. I have not used the term since and had only used it as Badbeat.com and Poker Player magazine had always used that term.
You continue to berate me on that.... and guess what guys... you see it here first.... i was wrong! Used the wrong word, though the site backing me always used it.
However, there was never a 'loan' that needed repaying, it was $500 a day and that was that. I can not remember the ins and outs, but the only situation where anything would need to be returned is if you were losing the lot every day.... part of the qualification period was to be able to show bankroll management, you would have to be playing like a lunatic to have to pay anything back and was just there to ensure you didnt do things differently just because it was 'free money'.
There were weekly sessions with a poker pro 'mentor', where i played and we swapped ideas. Because we could talk candidly, even then, there was talk of what was likely to happen online and how to combat it. Though nothing like the modern day outcomes. Also how well known pro's played completely different online to what they did in a real situation.
Interestingly enough, my mentor would never talk that way as a representative of online poker in a public forum/place. Obv wouldnt shoot himself in the foot with his deal with his online sponsorship. So i know..... even if others are not cracking on yet, that anyone who is anyone on here, are just keeping quiet or are aggressively denying it. Their own interests are at stake you see.
So we will never get anywhere, with us both knowing the score, but only one side being prepared to tell it like it is....
Well apparently when i was backed, without knowing much more than that, it was immediately shot down by several caped members. Bit late for that im afraid.....
Hmm, not sure I understand your answer if I'm honest. Thought it might be interesting stuff, but obviously as per usual you evade and deflect so ignorance is bliss.
I'll chip in a little bit. Simply because it is interesting-at least, I think so.
@TheWaddy originally referred to being a "sponsored" player. Which is something totally different from being a "backed" player.
I've been lucky enough to be a "sponsored" player in the past. Essentially, the sponsored player usually gets gifted buy-ins to various tournaments, either live or online, in return for promoting the site. And the sponsored player gets to keep 100% of their winnings.
A "backed" player is loaned the buy-ins, and usually also gets given coaching. In return, he is expected to repay the loan, together with an agreed percentage of any profit.
I have never been backed. I have always chosen to have 100% of myself. That's a personal choice. Even so, it is important to recognise that it is necessary for the Backer to have considerable faith in both win rate and work ethic of their horses. A considerable majority of poker players would never be offered either.
Personally, I know nothing about the outfit that backed him. It is also important to bear in mind that Sky is less keen on backing arrangements than other sites (some, such as GG, actively promote it). However, there were negative opinions expressed by 1 or 2 Regs on this site who I know have both been previously backed and provided backing to others. But that would reflect on the backer rather more than whoever they backed.
Hope that helps.
I think this shows EssexPhil wanting to promote himself, rather than 'help out' here.... Why he backs sites so much, is out to achieve ambassador status.... Clearly, a longgggg time ago you pulled me up on sponsorship and pointed out backing was very much different. I have not used the term since and had only used it as Badbeat.com and Poker Player magazine had always used that term.
You continue to berate me on that.... and guess what guys... you see it here first.... i was wrong! Used the wrong word, though the site backing me always used it.
However, there was never a 'loan' that needed repaying, it was $500 a day and that was that. I can not remember the ins and outs, but the only situation where anything would need to be returned is if you were losing the lot every day.... part of the qualification period was to be able to show bankroll management, you would have to be playing like a lunatic to have to pay anything back and was just there to ensure you didnt do things differently just because it was 'free money'.
There were weekly sessions with a poker pro 'mentor', where i played and we swapped ideas. Because we could talk candidly, even then, there was talk of what was likely to happen online and how to combat it. Though nothing like the modern day outcomes. Also how well known pro's played completely different online to what they did in a real situation.
Interestingly enough, my mentor would never talk that way as a representative of online poker in a public forum/place. Obv wouldnt shoot himself in the foot with his deal with his online sponsorship. So i know..... even if others are not cracking on yet, that anyone who is anyone on here, are just keeping quiet or are aggressively denying it. Their own interests are at stake you see.
So we will never get anywhere, with us both knowing the score, but only one side being prepared to tell it like it is....
It's this sort of post that causes you to get dismissed as a crank.
I'm never going to be sponsored by Sky. They sponsor precisely 1 player. Neil Channing. Who is a better poker player than I will ever be. Who is better connected in both the poker and wider gambling world than I will ever be. Who brings more to the table, from a sponsorship perspective than I ever will. So please stop with the snidey insinuations.
I love the idea that you appear to be genuinely believe that someone would give you $500 a day with absolutely no strings attached. I don't know the full story of badbeat.com. But it is clear they meet with a fair amount of derision elsewhere. As I have said elsewhere, I would be a rich man if I had managed to avoid "free" stuff.
There are differences between online and live poker. But nowhere near as large as you think. So-for example-if someone makes decisions instantly 99% of the time, it is important to try and ascertain the reason for the delay the other 1% of the time.
But where we fundamentally disagree is whether people are "aggressively denying" what you consider to be the truth. Some people on here listen to some of your more outlandish theories, and assume you are trolling. I don't have the sort of ego that makes me confident that I know your mind better than you do. FWIW, I believe you genuinely believe various stuff you say.
But there is a reverse to that particular coin. I know better than you ever will what my motivations are. I genuinely believe that it is next to impossible for poker sites to rig decks. It would be far easier to rig live games, and even that is extremely difficult.
The reason we will never get anywhere is not because I (and many others) are trying to further our own careers, or trying to hide anything.
Essexphil said: I love the idea that you appear to be genuinely believe that someone would give you $500 a day with absolutely no strings attached. I don't know the full story of badbeat.com. But it is clear they meet with a fair amount of derision elsewhere.
Maybe its not me 'lying', but you misunderstanding. I played with the $500... if i made a profit, we split.... if i lost, i did not have to pay it back... I personally couldnt lose. If you want to read it as them giving me $500 a day to keep, then thats just stupidity on your part!
As i said @TheEdge949 , backing has been dismissed by the caped regs as being something and nothing. it was just something i mentioned for just a 'little credibility' of knowing poker.
If there is one thing that has been proved... if this is stokefc/Jac/Misty4me/etc saying they were backed, it would be slaps on the back and all 100% positivity towards it. Any neutral can see, its treated a little differently, depending on whos sayin it!
Its on this stuff, you lot let yourselves down, as the differing treatment is there for all to see....
You really do have a bad reputation for it on the table talk....
Essexphil said: I love the idea that you appear to be genuinely believe that someone would give you $500 a day with absolutely no strings attached. I don't know the full story of badbeat.com. But it is clear they meet with a fair amount of derision elsewhere.
Maybe its not me 'lying', but you misunderstanding. I played with the $500... if i made a profit, we split.... if i lost, i did not have to pay it back... I personally couldnt lose. If you want to read it as them giving me $500 a day to keep, then thats just stupidity on your part!
There you go again.
I never said you were "lying". Not for the first time, you have said something that is just plain wrong. I don't think you are "lying"-just that you say things that are factually wrong.
So when you say, as you did at 10:16 today,
"However, there was never a 'loan' that needed repaying, it was $500 a day and that was that. I can not remember the ins and outs, but the only situation where anything would need to be returned is if you were losing the lot every day.... part of the qualification period was to be able to show bankroll management, you would have to be playing like a lunatic to have to pay anything back and was just there to ensure you didnt do things differently just because it was 'free money'."
That was all incorrect. For someone who "can not remember all the ins and outs", it didn't take you long to say that "that was that", "the only situation where anything would need to be returned", "you would have to be playing like a lunatic to have to pay anything back" and "free money" were all incorrect. Because you have just said precisely the opposite. You had to repay the loan. If you think that anyone is willing to split profits with you but bear 100% of any losses, then you live in a different world to me. Why would any backer do that? That is financial suicide.
My "misunderstanding"? They are your words.
So-when I said "I love the idea you appear to genuinely believe someone would give you $500 a day with no strings attached", the reason was really, really, simple. There were strings attached.
The problem is TheWaddy uses a straw man in every reply, but even worse he replies with a straw man when it has just been explained that he used a straw man. Impossible.
Calling it 'a loan' and using words like 'repaying' sort of makes it sound like some kind of something it wasnt. The account was their account, not mine. There was $500 each new day in there for me to play with, the previous day being swept clean either way.
Calling it 'a loan' and using words like 'repaying' sort of makes it sound like some kind of something it wasnt. The account was their account, not mine. There was $500 each new day in there for me to play with, the previous day being swept clean either way.
There was no 'repaying loans'.
You genuinely don't understand how this sort of thing works. So I will try and explain. And I will try and keep the maths and the poker terminology simple. In the hope that you might understand. Together with the expectation that other people will.
The starting point is the operation of the account under this bunch of shysters. It was in their name. Simply because they were running an Affiliate programme, while pretending it was a staking programme. Which is why they got banned from just about everywhere.
They were not honest about that. And it causes a massive difference in relation to profits, particularly for HU/DYM/STT players.
Let's start with some fairly standard assumptions in relation to a high volume midstakes HU or DYM player. Let's assume that he stakes £11,000 in a calendar month. And has a win rate of 58% (which is actually rather high, but I wanted to use a high figure). Let's also assume the backer claims that profits are split 50/50.
It is illusory to say you are being staked for £X per day. In reality, there is a multitude of small wins & losses, and probably only £100-200 being staked at any 1 time.
Under the affiliate programme, you would stake £11,000. That is £10,000 + £1,000 rake. £10,000 x 116% (i.e 58% x 2) = £11,600. You get £300, the backer gets £300.
But it is an affiliate programme. Any rakeback has gone to the "backer"-that is likely on those figures to be about £400. So in reality you get £300, and the "backer gets £700.
Whereas, if you played under your own account, your profit would be £1,000. Not £300.
You thought they were giving you free money. Whereas they thought you were giving them free money. And, for winning players, they were right.
You clearly have a natural ability in relation to playing HU PLO8 Poker. What you do not have is the ability to understand how poker works in relation to keeping money you make. It's not my misunderstanding. It is yours.
Maybe its not me 'lying', but you misunderstanding. I played with the $500... if i made a profit, we split.... if i lost, i did not have to pay it back... I personally couldnt lose. If you want to read it as them giving me $500 a day to keep, then thats just stupidity on your part!
That sounds like the worst deal in the world especially if you cant lose like you claim why not play off your own roll and keep 100%
Lol i just said i qualified and was a staked player....
Again (3rd time?) it was only mentioned to prove i knew a little more than the average person about poker!
I dont see anything in my posts that suggests anything that relates to your above latest bizarre reply, like i didnt understand it!
Again you assume without knowing the full details! It was very much short term and i was using them to for MY own benefit.... ie to get the info without any risk. Play $50-$100 from my usual $10 at the time. The plan was to go alone if i was able to continue at that level.
What i learnt is you had to sit there all day, to get a small handful of $50+ hi lo games going.... there were simply not enough games at that level.
But hey, if you want to portray me as stupid and someone who was milked for years, thats cool.... just make it up as you go along.
A business that makes money, in it for themselves and is not there just for the good of the player... who would have thought...... sounds like some others, not too far away... but you are cool with those ones!
At least as a minion here, i can see it .... and campaign for change... but you cant! And you cant now deny that one!
PS you keep on about my 'free money' quote.... which was in 'quotes' in the first place and was relating to players who would see it that way and play differently.... you guys are absolute robots!
Oh and on your sponsored jibe, like im some kind of BS merchant.....consider this from 2011. Forgive me for using the wrong terminology, but it was their words, not mine
A normal message from mumsie! wow, must be a reply set up!
Oh well here goes.... it was advertised in the now defunct Poker Player magazine and there was a 2 page article on it. The editor there had also gave it a go and did a diary on it in future issues. This was maybe 2006 ish.
To qualify you just had to register on a certain site and play 10k hands and show a certain profit, which was all my account and my profit. I then played with $100 a day on badbeat, did good, got raised to $500 which was my aim to have a go at the stakes i joined for.
Quickly though, i realised there was not going to be enough action at those levels, even on FullTilt and i quit. Playing smaller games to fill the time did not add up for me. Coughphilcough.
Again, the only reason i mentioned it was to prove i know what im talking about. Why Phil decided to take the whole operation apart as some kind of way to 'show me up', well thats the way he is!
PS oh and the close mentoring for 2 months or so with a pro was just worth it just for that! But Phil just sees the robotic stuff, like deciding what has happened in a hand just from a screenshot... no thought for who im playing, notes, trends, no nothing... just robotic figures... he had absolutely no info on me on badbeat and why i was there... then did a massive paragraph on their figures and work ethics.... im sure hes CP30.... or a similar model....
do sky allow you to stake players or does that have to be arranged offsite. I've staked players in live games a few times but wouldn't do it for online.
Comments
@TheWaddy is correct in everything he says.
@TheWaddy originally referred to being a "sponsored" player. Which is something totally different from being a "backed" player.
I've been lucky enough to be a "sponsored" player in the past. Essentially, the sponsored player usually gets gifted buy-ins to various tournaments, either live or online, in return for promoting the site. And the sponsored player gets to keep 100% of their winnings.
A "backed" player is loaned the buy-ins, and usually also gets given coaching. In return, he is expected to repay the loan, together with an agreed percentage of any profit.
I have never been backed. I have always chosen to have 100% of myself. That's a personal choice. Even so, it is important to recognise that it is necessary for the Backer to have considerable faith in both win rate and work ethic of their horses. A considerable majority of poker players would never be offered either.
Personally, I know nothing about the outfit that backed him. It is also important to bear in mind that Sky is less keen on backing arrangements than other sites (some, such as GG, actively promote it). However, there were negative opinions expressed by 1 or 2 Regs on this site who I know have both been previously backed and provided backing to others. But that would reflect on the backer rather more than whoever they backed.
Hope that helps.
Waddy still out on the streets advertising for them it seems
You continue to berate me on that.... and guess what guys... you see it here first.... i was wrong! Used the wrong word, though the site backing me always used it.
However, there was never a 'loan' that needed repaying, it was $500 a day and that was that. I can not remember the ins and outs, but the only situation where anything would need to be returned is if you were losing the lot every day.... part of the qualification period was to be able to show bankroll management, you would have to be playing like a lunatic to have to pay anything back and was just there to ensure you didnt do things differently just because it was 'free money'.
There were weekly sessions with a poker pro 'mentor', where i played and we swapped ideas. Because we could talk candidly, even then, there was talk of what was likely to happen online and how to combat it. Though nothing like the modern day outcomes. Also how well known pro's played completely different online to what they did in a real situation.
Interestingly enough, my mentor would never talk that way as a representative of online poker in a public forum/place. Obv wouldnt shoot himself in the foot with his deal with his online sponsorship. So i know..... even if others are not cracking on yet, that anyone who is anyone on here, are just keeping quiet or are aggressively denying it. Their own interests are at stake you see.
So we will never get anywhere, with us both knowing the score, but only one side being prepared to tell it like it is....
I'm never going to be sponsored by Sky. They sponsor precisely 1 player. Neil Channing. Who is a better poker player than I will ever be. Who is better connected in both the poker and wider gambling world than I will ever be. Who brings more to the table, from a sponsorship perspective than I ever will. So please stop with the snidey insinuations.
I love the idea that you appear to be genuinely believe that someone would give you $500 a day with absolutely no strings attached. I don't know the full story of badbeat.com. But it is clear they meet with a fair amount of derision elsewhere. As I have said elsewhere, I would be a rich man if I had managed to avoid "free" stuff.
There are differences between online and live poker. But nowhere near as large as you think. So-for example-if someone makes decisions instantly 99% of the time, it is important to try and ascertain the reason for the delay the other 1% of the time.
But where we fundamentally disagree is whether people are "aggressively denying" what you consider to be the truth. Some people on here listen to some of your more outlandish theories, and assume you are trolling. I don't have the sort of ego that makes me confident that I know your mind better than you do. FWIW, I believe you genuinely believe various stuff you say.
But there is a reverse to that particular coin. I know better than you ever will what my motivations are. I genuinely believe that it is next to impossible for poker sites to rig decks. It would be far easier to rig live games, and even that is extremely difficult.
The reason we will never get anywhere is not because I (and many others) are trying to further our own careers, or trying to hide anything.
It's simply because we think you are wrong.
Maybe its not me 'lying', but you misunderstanding. I played with the $500... if i made a profit, we split.... if i lost, i did not have to pay it back... I personally couldnt lose. If you want to read it as them giving me $500 a day to keep, then thats just stupidity on your part!
If there is one thing that has been proved... if this is stokefc/Jac/Misty4me/etc saying they were backed, it would be slaps on the back and all 100% positivity towards it. Any neutral can see, its treated a little differently, depending on whos sayin it!
Its on this stuff, you lot let yourselves down, as the differing treatment is there for all to see....
You really do have a bad reputation for it on the table talk....
I never said you were "lying". Not for the first time, you have said something that is just plain wrong. I don't think you are "lying"-just that you say things that are factually wrong.
So when you say, as you did at 10:16 today,
"However, there was never a 'loan' that needed repaying, it was $500 a day and that was that. I can not remember the ins and outs, but the only situation where anything would need to be returned is if you were losing the lot every day.... part of the qualification period was to be able to show bankroll management, you would have to be playing like a lunatic to have to pay anything back and was just there to ensure you didnt do things differently just because it was 'free money'."
That was all incorrect. For someone who "can not remember all the ins and outs", it didn't take you long to say that "that was that", "the only situation where anything would need to be returned", "you would have to be playing like a lunatic to have to pay anything back" and "free money" were all incorrect. Because you have just said precisely the opposite. You had to repay the loan. If you think that anyone is willing to split profits with you but bear 100% of any losses, then you live in a different world to me. Why would any backer do that? That is financial suicide.
My "misunderstanding"? They are your words.
So-when I said "I love the idea you appear to genuinely believe someone would give you $500 a day with no strings attached", the reason was really, really, simple. There were strings attached.
There was no 'repaying loans'.
The starting point is the operation of the account under this bunch of shysters. It was in their name. Simply because they were running an Affiliate programme, while pretending it was a staking programme. Which is why they got banned from just about everywhere.
They were not honest about that. And it causes a massive difference in relation to profits, particularly for HU/DYM/STT players.
Let's start with some fairly standard assumptions in relation to a high volume midstakes HU or DYM player. Let's assume that he stakes £11,000 in a calendar month. And has a win rate of 58% (which is actually rather high, but I wanted to use a high figure). Let's also assume the backer claims that profits are split 50/50.
It is illusory to say you are being staked for £X per day. In reality, there is a multitude of small wins & losses, and probably only £100-200 being staked at any 1 time.
Under the affiliate programme, you would stake £11,000. That is £10,000 + £1,000 rake. £10,000 x 116% (i.e 58% x 2) = £11,600. You get £300, the backer gets £300.
But it is an affiliate programme. Any rakeback has gone to the "backer"-that is likely on those figures to be about £400. So in reality you get £300, and the "backer gets £700.
Whereas, if you played under your own account, your profit would be £1,000. Not £300.
You thought they were giving you free money. Whereas they thought you were giving them free money. And, for winning players, they were right.
You clearly have a natural ability in relation to playing HU PLO8 Poker. What you do not have is the ability to understand how poker works in relation to keeping money you make. It's not my misunderstanding. It is yours.
Maybe its not me 'lying', but you misunderstanding. I played with the $500... if i made a profit, we split.... if i lost, i did not have to pay it back... I personally couldnt lose. If you want to read it as them giving me $500 a day to keep, then thats just stupidity on your part!
That sounds like the worst deal in the world especially if you cant lose like you claim why not play off your own roll and keep 100%
Again (3rd time?) it was only mentioned to prove i knew a little more than the average person about poker!
I dont see anything in my posts that suggests anything that relates to your above latest bizarre reply, like i didnt understand it!
Again you assume without knowing the full details! It was very much short term and i was using them to for MY own benefit.... ie to get the info without any risk. Play $50-$100 from my usual $10 at the time. The plan was to go alone if i was able to continue at that level.
What i learnt is you had to sit there all day, to get a small handful of $50+ hi lo games going.... there were simply not enough games at that level.
But hey, if you want to portray me as stupid and someone who was milked for years, thats cool.... just make it up as you go along.
A business that makes money, in it for themselves and is not there just for the good of the player... who would have thought...... sounds like some others, not too far away... but you are cool with those ones!
At least as a minion here, i can see it .... and campaign for change... but you cant! And you cant now deny that one!
PS you keep on about my 'free money' quote.... which was in 'quotes' in the first place and was relating to players who would see it that way and play differently.... you guys are absolute robots!
Did they headhunt you or did you apply for staking on this page?
Oh well here goes.... it was advertised in the now defunct Poker Player magazine and there was a 2 page article on it. The editor there had also gave it a go and did a diary on it in future issues. This was maybe 2006 ish.
To qualify you just had to register on a certain site and play 10k hands and show a certain profit, which was all my account and my profit. I then played with $100 a day on badbeat, did good, got raised to $500 which was my aim to have a go at the stakes i joined for.
Quickly though, i realised there was not going to be enough action at those levels, even on FullTilt and i quit. Playing smaller games to fill the time did not add up for me. Coughphilcough.
Again, the only reason i mentioned it was to prove i know what im talking about. Why Phil decided to take the whole operation apart as some kind of way to 'show me up', well thats the way he is!
PS oh and the close mentoring for 2 months or so with a pro was just worth it just for that! But Phil just sees the robotic stuff, like deciding what has happened in a hand just from a screenshot... no thought for who im playing, notes, trends, no nothing... just robotic figures... he had absolutely no info on me on badbeat and why i was there... then did a massive paragraph on their figures and work ethics.... im sure hes CP30.... or a similar model....
Staking deals